In People v. Schuller (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 221; 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309, 317-19 the Court of Appeal concluded that “the refusal to instruct on imperfect self-defense here was error. While defendant’s testimony included evidence of delusion, his account pertaining to the actual shooting was not entirely delusional and thus provided substantial evidence of an actual but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense.” (People v. Schuller, supra, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 319.)
The CSC granted review on 1/19/2022 to consider whether “prejudice from this error is to be tested under the Watson test, as the CCA held, or under the Chapman standard of harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.” The order granting review goes on: “Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 72 Cal.App.5th 221, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, to choose between sides of any such conflict.”
The “persuasive value” of Schuller is strong on substantive issue of whether the imperfect self-defense instruction is warranted when the defendant’s testimony re: self-defense is not “entirely delusional.”
[T]he Elmore court [People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121] was careful to note: “[a] defendant who misjudges the external circumstances may show that mental disturbance contributed to the mistaken perception of a threat,” and thus “defendants who mistakenly believed that actual circumstances required their defensive act may argue they are guilty only of voluntary manslaughter, even if their reaction was distorted by mental illness .” ( Id. at p. 146,italics added.)
(People v. Schuller, supra, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309, 318.)
Defendant testified that W.T. came at him with a knife, while reaching for the gun on the table, prompting him to shoot in self-defense. While there were delusional components to defendant’s story (the “light” being taken from him, and whether W.T. was Satan), his claim was not entirely delusional like in Elmore … Elmore contemplates that imperfect self-defense is available here: “defendants who mistakenly believed that actual circumstances required their defensive act may argue they are guilty only of voluntary manslaughter, even if their reaction was distorted by mental illness.” [Citation to Elmore, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 146].” (italics added by Schuller.)
People v. Schuller, supra, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309, 320
